Talk:Laquintasaura/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: LittleLazyLass (talk · contribs) 02:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 02:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Will review soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Laquintasaura is a genus of Venezuelan ornithischian dinosaur containing only the type species Laquintasaura venezuelae. – I think this is too technical and there is a MOS:SEAOFBLUE problem. I would write "Laquintasaura is a genus of ornithischian dinosaur discovered from Early Jurassic rocks in Venezuela. Its only species is Laquintasaura venezuelae."

• The species was the first dinosaur to have been identified from Venezuela – Do you mean "the first dinosaur named from material discovered in Venezuela", or is it really both the first named species and first identified dinosaur fossil from the country?

• These initial French discoveries - two teeth and a quadrate would be brought to Paris and described by D.E. Russel and colleagues in a 1992 study; based on similar cranial anatomy, they were referred to the genus Lesothosaurus, an early ornithischian from the Early Jurassic of Lesotho and South Africa. – Sentence needs rewording, grammar between the different parts does not match.

Done.

• Please revise all colloquial abbreviations like "they'd" and "it's" as they are inappropriate.

Done for discovery and naming section.

• would finally publish on the material in a 2008 paper in the scientific journal PalZ – Why isn't that nowhere in the references? Also, in 2008, the journal might have still been distributed under is old name, "Paläontologische Zeitschrift".

Primary because it frankly doesn't have much of any information worth referencing; that said, I've added it as a reference to that sentence. You're correct about the Journal name, that's been fixed.

• The prose is sometimes very difficult to read as the sentences are often way too long and convoluted. Example: This paper would re-evaluate the 2008 paper's conclusions, finding through comparisons with newly prepared material as well as new data on the usefulness of identifying features relied on by the 2008 study that almost all material in the bonebed (excepting two theropod teeth, later described with a newly recognized tibia as Tachiraptor[1][2]) in fact belonged to the previously identified ornithischian taxon. Here, I would personally be inclined to just cut "finding through comparisons with newly prepared material as well as new data on the usefulness of identifying features relied on by the 2008 study" as it might not be pertinent. Alternatively, you could keep it as a separate sentence on its own, as an elaboration of the main sentence.

Addressed this sentence and some other similar ones in the same section.

• all four major types of vertebrae – too unspecific; you could as well state what these types are, or write something like "from the neck, back, and tail".

• Resolve citations such as "Baron et al. (2017)" into "Baron and colleagues, in 2017" or something, as you did elsewhere?

• Links are a mess. Please check for duplicate links, too (terms should be linked in both the lead and the body, but only once in each).

Change some link issues as appropriate, but "links are a mess" is very vague.

• More later. The major issue is criterion 1 "Well written"; the article needs some work to get there. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Assessment: No issues with sources and comprehensiveness. The only issue is prose quality. I suggest the following: 1) There are many typo and grammar errors. I fixed quite a bunch myself [1], but it's a bit much. Maybe use a spelling/grammar checker? 2) Look for unnecessary detail and redundancies. You often write more than is needed, and sometimes the important points get a bit buried in other detail. Some examples:

• The most distinctive part of the anatomy is Laquintasaura is found in its dentition, with numerous distinguishing traits (autapomorphies) found therein. – The second part of the sentence says the same as the first, using different words. This is redundant, and the sentence could be much shorter.
• The exact nature of the taphonomy of the Laquintasaura bonebed remains incompletely studied. – "The exact nature of" is entirely unnecessary and can be removed.
• maybe have lived together in life – they certainly have not lived together while dead.

So as said, please have another go through the article with these points in mind, and we should be fine. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll give it a thorough look-over sometime this week and try and rewrite each section as appropriate. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've published a revised draft of the discovery and naming section. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks very good so far. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Similar treatment published for the description section. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Final two sections also revised. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 08:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• A drive-by comment, could also link more names and terms in image captions. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Done where it seemed applicable. Though I'm not sure if the bonebed article is more helpful than confusing... LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 08:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good now. Promoting! Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.